Editor's Note :

We expect one or more decisions in argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at approximately 9:45 The Court also has confirmed that the audiotape of Wednesday’s hearing in King v. Burwell will not be released on that day, but on Friday, as is usual.Wednesday's live blog will be available here.

Breaking News :

This week at the Court – In Plain English

Posted Thu, December 9th, 2010 4:29 pm by Lisa McElroy

However cold it might have been this week in Washington, D.C. (and if you're not on the East Coast, let me tell you "“ it is cold), action at the Court was hot. Yes, now that we are a full two months into the Term, it feels like we never left "“ just in time for the Christmas recess.

The week started off big when the Court granted cert. in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class action employment discrimination case against the retail giant that Court watchers have been eyeing for months. The Court won't be considering whether Wal-Mart actually discriminated against its female employees; instead, it will hear arguments about the class action mechanism itself. As I've explained in previous Plain English posts, a class action is a type of lawsuit where many plaintiffs with similar claims join together and bring one suit, rather than many individual ones. A few "named plaintiffs" whose claims and experiences are typical of the rest of the class assert the legal rights of all the other class members. Courts often see class actions as efficient "“ after all, why hear pretty much the same case a thousand times if all one thousand plaintiffs agree to accept a single outcome? Plaintiffs see class actions as advantageous when their individual claims are too small to warrant the time and expense of a trial and when they can afford to hire a lawyer (and get a lawyer interested in their case) en masse but not individually. Lawyers often see class actions as lucrative: if they get a whole bunch of plaintiffs together and take a percentage of their damage awards for a fee, then they can work hard but get paid well for it. Of course, there are all kinds of criticisms of class actions, too, among them the concern that the lawyers end up making much more money than the plaintiffs do, but federal procedure rules allow class actions so that plaintiffs can receive something they want and need: an opportunity to bring their cases in court.

In the Wal-Mart case, though, there is some skepticism about both the size of the proposed class and its make-up. For class actions to work as they should, all of the plaintiffs in the class must have very similar claims because they have suffered very similar harms "“ so that any damages awarded to the class will truly compensate them for the harm that they have suffered and so that the defendants can prepare one defense to the class claims. In the Wal-Mart case, the company is arguing that the class is too large "“ it includes hundreds of thousands of female store employees from across the country "“ and that the class members' claims are not similar enough to justify certifying them as a class. After all, they worked at different stores, under different bosses, in different positions. How can they all have suffered the same harm?

Of course, this case is not only about Wal-Mart, and that's what makes it (and most other Supreme Court cases) so interesting. Whatever the Court decides about class actions will trickle down and affect the formation of future class actions, as well. While many commentators have noted that the current Court is quite friendly to big business, others, like Dahlia Lithwick, have noted that the three women on the Court may want the class to be certified so as to reach the gender discrimination claims at the heart of the case.

Last but not least, the interests of some real underdogs "“ undocumented immigrants "“ were hotly debated at the Court this week in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. At issue was an Arizona law (no, not that Arizona law) that penalized businesses hiring such workers. The problem? Well, immigration matters are generally the domain of the federal government, and the states are not allowed to pass laws interfering with that federal role. But under a tiny phrase in a federal law allowing the state to pass laws in very limited circumstances (mostly licensing situations), Arizona may have found its own loophole "“ by revoking the business licenses of companies that employ undocumented immigrants rather than fining them. The Justices appeared divided on the question; with Justice Elena Kagan recused from the case, it is possible that the Justices could tie four to four, which would result in the decision below being affirmed.

The case is important because other similar laws, including the recent Arizona law allowing police to stop those whom they reasonably suspect to be in this country illegally, are on their way to the Court. And as we've seen with all of the cases described in this post, a single Supreme Court case is most important when it serves as precedent for cases down the pike.

Happy holidays to all! I'll be back after the first of the year to discuss all things Supreme Court "“ in Plain English.

Merits Case Pages and Archives

On Monday the Court issued orders from its February 27 Conference. Two new cases were granted. In case there are opinions, we will be live blogging both Tuesday and Wednesday. This is the second week of the February sitting.

“I think always the humor was a means to an end. And the end is, to help folks who don’t live in this world understand why it matters.” Dahlia Lithwick covers the Supreme Court and writes about law more broadly for Slate.com. In this six-part interview, Ms. Lithwick discusses law school, practicing law, and how […]